Quote from: seParatrooper on October 04, 2020, 11:39:16 PM

Quote from: OgNasty on October 04, 2020, 10:44:26 PM

Quote from: seParatrooper on October 04, 2020, 10:02:59 PM

Code:

Address: bc1qgmu677807vnqrxp549vvw7x050czyw9jhstkgv

Message: I’m seParatrooper and I can sign a message.

Thank you OgNasty for such a great task. Before that, I didn't know that a bitcoin wallet can be used to sign a message.

Signature: HxXo6XzXKjVDsYlHMVBYm5tc/KwmNfxnKLOln3noLiOqHpvgLEIpulT43NGiQwggx00Ots7ffOc2jut4P1q5UZ0=

Wouldn't verify.

Next try.
...

It didn't verify because SegWit (bech32 is native SegWit) has no standard for signing messages yet:

Quote from: achow101 on February 05, 2018, 04:38:12 PM

Quote from: bitmover on February 05, 2018, 04:33:49 PM

My doubt, regarding signing in segwit address is if this is a "bug" and will soon be corrected, or is it an abandoned feature?

It is neither a bug nor an abandoned feature. It is just that we are still working on creating a more generalized signing scheme that lets people sign with things like P2SH addresses (e.g. sign with a multisig address). There is simply no standard yet for signing with such scripts or with Segwit.

However, if it's signed from Electrum, it can be verified from Electrum but only from Electrum because Electrum is using an own function to sign / verify here.
It verifies from Electrum:

And because of that it doesn't verify from Jochen Hoenicke website:

But for better compatibility it's always recommended to sign from legacy addresses (1....).